________________________ August 3, 1998 ________________________ GSBCA 14300-TRAV In the Matter of MARY ANN WILSON Mary Ann Wilson, Laurel, MD, Claimant. Sarah S. Tuck, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MD, appearing for Department of Agriculture. GOODMAN, Board Judge Claimant, Mary Ann Wilson, is a former employee of the Department of Agriculture. Claimant has requested that this Board review actions of the agency arising from two travel vouchers in relation to two periods of temporary duty (TDY) travel from her permanent duty station, Baltimore, Maryland, to Los Angeles, California. Claimant received travel advances totaling $7000 for the two periods of travel. The agency has not paid claimant for any travel expenses claimed on the first travel voucher. In January and February 1993, the agency withheld from claimant's salary a total of $5447.85 to recoup a portion of the $7000 travel advance.[foot #] 1 In August 1993, the agency determined that claimant was entitled to reimbursement of $3277.25 for travel expenses claimed on the second voucher. The agency recovered the remainder of the travel advances by retaining $1552.15 of the $3277.25, Agency Exhibit 4, and paying claimant $1725.10. Record at 124. By letter dated August 29, 1997, Record at 1-2, claimant requested review of the agency's actions and a determination that she was due the withheld amounts plus interest from the dates withheld, plus an additional $510.45 plus interest from March 20, ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant's salary was reduced on the following dates in the amounts indicated: January 23, 1993 - $1595.09; February 6, 1993 - $1787.33; February 20, 1993 - $2065.43. Record at 120-123. The Board compiled a paginated record from the information received from claimant and the agency which we reference as Record. We sought and received comments from the claimant and the agency as to the documents in this compilation. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 1992,[foot #] 2 minus the sum of $1725.10 which represents the partial payment received, plus payments to her Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account "for the lost deposits ($65.68 per pay period) and all lost interest to date due to the seizure of my salary," and "[r]eimbursement of any and all expenses incurred . . . in connection with the two vouchers constituting this claim." [foot #] 3 The agency states its position in this matter as follows: The agency does not deny that it sent Ms. Wilson on travel and that she is entitled to payment for proper travel claims. However, travel reimbursement claims must be supported by appropriate receipts, etc. in accordance with General Services Administration (GSA) regulation. In this case, the agency provided extensive assistance to the claimant in order for her to receive any monies she is entitled to receive. However, needed information and receipts were not produced to support some of Ms. Wilson's claims for reimbursement. . . . . The Agency has been previously unable to reimburse Ms. Wilson for some of her claims because she has: . . . repeatedly refused to submit proper receipts and needed information for claimed expenses in accordance with GSA regulations . . . [and] failed to properly fill out vouchers and/or sign travel vouchers that the Agency properly filled out for her. Agency Response to Claim (Sept. 23, 1997) at 1-2. The agency has submitted the following correspondence containing allegations that claimant has failed to properly submit her travel vouchers for processing: December 23, 1992 (Agency Exhibit 1); January 21, 1993 (Agency Exhibit 2); February 4, 1993 (Agency Exhibit 3); August 12, 1993 (Agency Exhibit 4); October 18, 1993 (Agency Exhibit 5); October 27, 1993 (Agency Exhibit 6); November 10, 1993 (Agency Exhibit 7); and March 8, 1995 (Agency Exhibit 8). ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 This is the amount claimed as Net to Traveler on the travel voucher for the first period of travel. Record at 21. [foot #] 3 By letter dated January 16, 1998, claimant also requested that this Board resolve claims for overtime allegedly arising from travel which could not be accomplished without overtime. The Board does not have jurisdiction to resolve these claims. Robert D. Rahmes, GSBCA 14220-TRAV (May 18, 1998); _________________ Darrell R. Ratliff, GSBCA 14403-TRAV (May 15, 1998). __________________ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- We have reviewed the agency s actions and determined claimant s entitlement to additional reimbursable amounts. First Travel Voucher - February 3 through March 6, 1992 For the first period of TDY travel, from February 3 through March 6, 1992, claimant received a travel advance of $2500. Record at 21. Claimant has not received reimbursement from the agency for any expenses arising from travel during the first period. Accordingly, we have reviewed the voucher and supporting documentation to determine whether the agency should have reimbursed claimant for such expenses. Even though the agency documents referenced above contain allegations that claimant failed to submit a properly signed voucher, claimant has submitted a copy of a signed travel voucher bearing the date March 20, 1992. Record at 16-20. She asserts that the signature is hers, and that this is an accurate copy of the voucher submitted. This travel voucher is the one that is the subject of the agency correspondence dated December 23, 1992. Agency Exhibit 1. An earlier version of this voucher, signed by claimant, also appears as an attachment to Agency Exhibit 2. Accordingly, the agency allegations that claimant failed to submit a properly signed travel voucher are not supported by the record. We therefore review the travel costs for which reimbursement has been claimed and, based upon the record in this case, determine the costs to be reimbursed to claimant. Per diem Per diem is claimed for thirty-three days in the total amount of $2669. For each of the thirty-three days, claimant has entered a cost for lodging - $69 for February 3; $50 per day for February 4-6; and $48 per day for each date from February 7 to March 5,[foot #] 4 resulting in total lodging claimed in the amount of $1563. She has also claimed Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) of $34 per day for February 3-4 and February 7 to March 6, and $26 per day for February 5-6, for a total M&IE claimed of $1106. The agency has stated the following objections to these costs: The M&IE rate claimed for 2/4/92 is incorrect. The correct rate for Ontario, CA is $26.00 instead of $34.00. Per Federal Travel Regulations, Chapter 301- 7.5(2) . . . Travel of more than 24 hours (Standard CONUS or locality rate from Appendix A of this chapter) for each calendar day of travel shall be determined by the travel status and location of the employee at 12:00 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 4 There was no lodging claimed for March 6, as claimant returned home that day. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- midnight and whether lodging is required at such location. In addition, the itinerary for 3/6/92 is questionable, as we cannot distinguish the ending time of her travel: 1900 hours or 1400 hours? This point does affect her entitlement to M&IE. This needs clarification. In reviewing Ms. Wilson s voucher further, we also noticed that she should not have been charged tax on 2/3/92 since she was in the L.A. County area. Whether or not she was credited the tax amount on her actual check-out receipt we cannot assume, therefore the $8 could possibly balance out the per diem amount claimed on 2/4/92. During FY 1992 Travel Procedures, all a) modes (POV, taxi, air carrier, etc.) of travel, b) points (residence, official duty station, or other) from which travel begins and ends, and c) corresponding start and end times should be clearly noted. The itinerary on the subject voucher s departure and return dates need to reflect the detail of travel. This information needs to be complete as it does affect the entitlement of M&IE for the starting and ending travel days. Agency Exhibit 1. For the agency to have refused to make payment for the costs claimed based upon these minor considerations is unreasonable. The above comments by the agency do not present any reason for refusal to find claimant entitled to almost all of the costs claimed for lodging and M&IE. While it is true that there is a charge of $8.63 for tax on February 3, claimant has not included this charge in her request for reimbursement - she has only requested reimbursement of the $69 room charge, which does not include the tax. With regard to M&IE, the amounts in question are also insignificant and offer no excuse for failure to pay most, if not all, of the amounts claimed. The agency questions an amount of $8, the difference in the $34 claimed by claimant for M&IE for February 4, 1992, and the amount asserted by the agency as the correct amount. The agency is correct that under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), the M&IE rate for Ontario was $26, rather than $34 as claimed. 41 CFR ch. 301, app. A (1992). The agency also disputes whether claimant is entitled to the $34 amounts claimed for M&IE on February 3 and March 6, her dates of departure and return, because she has failed to record her times of departure and return. The times are clearly indicated on the voucher for the days in question. On the day of departure, she recorded a departure time of 6:00 a.m. (east coast time) and arrival time of 6:00 p.m (west coast time). On the day of return, she recorded a departure time of 6:45 a.m. (west coast time) and arrival time of 6:00 p.m (east coast time). Record at 17, 20. These travel times are within the relevant time periods to entitle her to of the per diem claimed for the day of departure - $25.50; and of the per diem for the day of return - $17. 41 CFR 301-7.8(a), (e). Accordingly, there is no apparent reason why she is not entitled to reimbursement of $2625.50, which is the amount claimed minus the $8 reduction for M&IE for February 4 and the $25.50 reduction for the M&IE for the days of departure and return, unless such amount is not supported by appropriate receipts. While the agency has asserted in this proceeding that various receipts have not been submitted, claimant asserts that [c]ontrary to the agency claim that needed receipts were not supplied, all required receipts were attached. Letter from Claimant to the Board ( Jan. 16, 1998). For this travel voucher, she refers to the receipts in the Record at 33-38. However, to support her lodging costs, she has submitted copies of receipts for only February 3-18. Record at 33-37. While the receipts for the Ramada Inn, Record at 35-37, are not very legible, the Board is able to discern that these receipts are only for February 7- 18, 1992. These same receipts are attached to the Government s copy submitted with Agency Exhibit 2, dated January 21, 1993. Despite claimant s assertions that she has previously submitted all required receipts, the record does not contain copies of the receipts for the period February 19 through March 5, 1992, and claimant has informed the Board that she has not retained the original receipts.[foot #] 5 Claimant has the burden of proving the liability of the agency and claimant s right to payment in these proceedings. Board Rule 401(c). 48 CFR 6104.1(c)(1997). Accordingly, we cannot find that claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of lodging for February 19 through March 5, 1992, based on the record in this case. These unsupported lodging costs total $768.[foot #] 6 Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of only $1857.50, not the entire amount of $2625.50. Transportation Claimant also requested reimbursement of $111 for common carrier fees. This consists of $43 for a taxi on day of ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 5 By letter dated April 17, 1998, to the Board, in response to the Board s inquiry, claimant stated, As far as I know, the originals of the copies I submitted have been disposed of or were lost when I moved in 1993. [foot #] 6 16 nights x $48/night = $768. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- departure, February 3, 1992, and $68 for a shuttle from the airport on the day of return, March 6. The agency makes the following comment: Original and complete Common Carrier Receipt(s) are required for the $68.00 claim on 3/6/92. The copy of Super Shuttle receipt for $48.00 attached is not acceptable. Date of Service is not referenced, nor is it an original receipt; we cannot assume such receipt has not been claimed previously. Agency Exhibit 1. The agency also notes that the FTR, at 41 CFR 301-11.3, required receipts for cash expenditures greater than $25. Agency Response (Jan. 28, 1998). There is no requirement that original receipts be submitted. With regard to the agency s assertion that date of service be noted on the receipt, apparently, the agency is relying upon 41 CFR 301-11.3(c)(5), which does require this information in certain circumstances, but excludes taxicabs locally. Claimant has submitted a receipt for $48 for the first trip on February 3, 1992. While the agency states that it cannot assume such receipt has not been submitted previously, the agency states no basis for its inference that the receipt may have been submitted previously. Accordingly, claimant should be reimbursed the $48 claimed for the first trip. There is no supporting receipt for the return trip for $68, and accordingly claimant may not be reimbursed for this trip. Personal Telephone Calls The agency s review of the travel voucher stated in relevant part: [T]he entitlement for claiming personal telephone calls is up to $5.00 a day x the total number of lodging nights. Only 32 nights are reflected for lodging, therefore if all the requirements are met, then the maximum amount to claim for phone calls is up to $160.00. Agency Exhibit 1. The applicable agency bulletin (APHIS Bulletin 98-1 (Apr. 22, 1991)), which was in effect during claimant s two periods of travel, reads in relevant part: AUTHORIZED TELEPHONE CALLS OF A PERSONAL NATURE DURING OFFICIAL TRAVEL . . . III. DEFINITIONS A. Immediate family. This includes spouse, minor children, or anyone sharing the same residence with the employee. B. Local duty station s immediate commuting area. The area from which an employee regularly commutes. IV. POLICY A. Authorized Telephone Calls. Long distance telephone calls are authorized as being in the interest of the Government when 1) an employee, traveling on official business for two or more nights, makes a brief call to his/her residence, or to a location within the local duty station s immediate commuting area to speak to members of the immediate family, and 2) the telephone call is to discuss household matters with the spouse, minor children, or anyone sharing the same residence. . . . B. Use of Commercial Services. A call may be made on a commercial system when a Government telephone system, such as FTS, is not available or it is not convenient to place calls of a personal nature on a Government telephone system. . . . V. REIMBURSEMENT A. Guidelines - Reimbursement for authorized telephone calls of a personal nature on a commercial system will be made under the following guidelines: 1. Travel between points within the 50 states . . . . a. The maximum amount that may be approved for each travel period (i.e., consecutive days of the official travel) cannot exceed an amount equal to $5.00 multiplied by the number of lodging nights. . . . b. A claim is allowed for calls placed to the local commuting area on the day of return only for notification of a change of schedule. The agency cites APHIS Supplement Chapter 301 as justification for denying reimbursement to claimant: When employees do not have immediate family at the official duty station, a maximum of one telephone call per week is permitted to a non-family member within the employee s local commuting area . . . . Agency Response (Jan. 28, 1998). Claimant has requested reimbursement for telephone calls to her residence in the amount of $165. She has claimed $5 per day for thirty-three days, even though she returned on the thirty- third day. An itemized list of the actual charges for these phone calls is contained in the travel voucher. Record at 27-28. Claimant identifies the person called as her housemate. We presume this person shares her residence. She states: Regulations allow calls to anyone sharing the traveler s residence. Due to the time difference and the unknown work schedule it was not reasonable to expect my housemate to be at home for each call. Since my housemate regularly ate with and assisted my father and had a job I phoned different numbers but all were within 12 miles of home and within the commuting area of my office. Claimant asserts that the person she called on a daily basis was an individual with whom she shared her residence. There is nothing in the record to dispute claimant s allegation. The regulation includes such a person in the definition of immediate family for the purpose of reimbursement of telephone calls, and limits reimbursement to $5 per day of official travel, except for the day of return, unless the call on the day of return was for notification of a change in travel schedule. Since there is no indication in the record that the call claimed on the day of return was for notification of change in travel schedule, claimant is entitled to reimbursement of $160, rather than $165 as claimed. Other Miscellaneous Expenses Claimant requests reimbursement for the following miscellaneous expenses - telephone calls for the purpose of official business - $24.66; traveler s check fee - $20; and vehicle supplies - $20.19. These expenses are reimbursable pursuant to regulation. 41 CFR 301-9.1(c) (traveler s check fees), (e) (other expenses not enumerated, when necessarily incurred by the traveler in connection with official business). As the agency has made no specific challenge to reimbursement of these costs, other than the allegation that the voucher was unsigned, claimant is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. Second Travel Voucher - August 17 through September 18, 1992 For the second period of TDY travel, from August 17 through September 18, 1992, claimant received a travel advance of $4500, Record at 54, and submitted a travel voucher for reimbursement of costs. When this second voucher was submitted, claimant had not received reimbursement for any expenses on the first voucher. In January and February 1993, a total of $5447.85 was withheld from claimant s salary in order to recoup a portion of the $7000 previously advanced to claimant for the two periods of travel. The agency determined that claimant was entitled to reimbursement of $3277.25 for the expenses on the second travel voucher. Agency Exhibit 4. Claimant received a partial payment of $1725.10 by check dated August 18, 1993. Record at 124. The difference between the amount found reimbursable and the amount paid ($1552.15) represents the travel advance funds the agency considered outstanding, i.e., the difference between the $7000 advanced to claimant and the $5447.85 previously withheld from her salary. The agency asserts that the payment was made in error: The agency erred in paying the above amount of $1725.10, because claimant would not submit a proper, signed travel voucher. The undersigned believes this was an attempt to avoid further garnishment of claimant s salary. The error was made in good faith in an attempt to help Claimant who would not or could not adhere to travel regulation. This error will not be repeated. Agency Response to Board Inquiry (Apr. 16, 1998). While the agency alleges that claimant did not submit a proper, signed travel voucher, the record contains three versions of a signed travel voucher for the period in question. Record at 54-61; Agency Exhibit 4, Attachment. Respondent has submitted a copy of a travel voucher signed by both claimant and an approving official of the agency bearing the date September 18, 1992, which apparently was the version which was processed for payment. Agency Exhibit 4. The costs listed on this voucher are supported by the attached pages to the similar version of the voucher, apparently prepared by claimant, Record at 60-61, and receipts, Record at 62-75. . As discussed below, claimant is entitled to reimbursement of some costs in addition to those previously reimbursed by the agency, with a small adjustment for an overpayment made by the agency. Per diem Per diem is claimed for 32 days in the total amount of $3239.50. For each of the thirty-two full days, claimant has entered a cost for lodging. Receipts for lodging are attached; they support the lodging charges claimed. Record at 62-70. These charges were $69 for August 17, $79 per day for August 18- 20, and $65 per day for August 21 - September 17.[foot #] 7 Total lodging claimed was $2126. M&IE was claimed at $25.50 ( of $34) per day for August 17 and $34 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 7 There was no lodging claimed for September 18, as claimant returned home that day. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- per day for August 18-September 18, for a total M&IE of $1113.50. From this total of $3239.50, the agency paid $3205.50. From the line-outs and corrections on the voucher that was processed, Agency Exhibit 4 , apparently made by the approving official to indicate the amount of the costs reimbursed, M&IE costs were reimbursed for 31 days rather than for 32 days, which accounts for the reimbursement to the claimant of $34 less than the amount requested. According to an agency response to a Board inquiry, the reason one day s costs were not reimbursed was that: The amount paid was based on days that could be verified. Claimant has made it clear that she cannot recall her departure and arrival times . . . . Agency Response (Apr. 16, 1998). We do not understand the agency s comment that claimant cannot recall her arrival and departure times. On the day of return, the voucher contains a departure time of 5:30 a.m. (west coast time) and arrival at 5:30 p.m. (east coast time). This would entitle claimant to reimbursement of of the daily rate - $25.50. 41 CFR 301-8 (a), (e). Accordingly, claimant is entitled to a total of $3231 for per diem, rather than the $3239.50 claimed. Personal Telephone Calls Again, claimant has requested reimbursement for personal telephone calls at the rate of $5 per day for thirty-three days. The same issues were raised by the agency as pertained to the calls claimed in the first voucher. Agency Exhibit 4. Claimant raises the same arguments for reimbursement. Claimant asserts that the person she called on a daily basis was an individual with whom she shared her residence. There is nothing in the record to dispute claimant s allegation. An itemized list of the actual charges for these phone calls is included in the travel voucher. Record at 71-73. The regulation includes such a person in the definition of immediate family for the purpose of reimbursement of telephone calls, and limits reimbursement to $5 per day of official travel, except for the day of return, unless the call on the day of return was for notification of a change in travel schedule. Since there is no indication in the record that the call claimed on the day of return was for notification of change in travel schedule, claimant is entitled to reimbursement of $160, rather than $165 as claimed. Local Transportation Claimant requested reimbursement for an estimated $45 in cab fares on the day of departure and day of return, for a total of $90. An actual receipt was submitted for the day of return for $27, with no receipt for the day of departure. She was reimbursed $45, as explained by the agency: Apparently, the Agency gave the claimant the benefit of the doubt and paid her for one of these fares (or perhaps as a split between the two taxi trips for under $25 dollars each). Agency Response (Jan. 29, 1998). This was not correct, as the applicable regulation required receipts for all cash expenditures over $25. 41 CFR 301-11.3(c). Accordingly, claimant should have been reimbursed only $27, for the trip for which she supplied a receipt. She was overpaid $18 for local transportation. Miscellaneous Costs Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the following costs - parking, tolls - $6.75, traveler s check fees - $20, and business telephone calls - $1.94, pursuant to the regulations previously cited concerning these costs. Amounts Now Due Claimant As stated previously, the agency has recouped from claimant the travel advance funds in the amount of $7000 - by withholding $5447.85 from her salary and $1552.15 from the reimbursable amounts the agency determined were due under the second travel voucher. Accordingly, any reimbursable amounts due claimant which have not been paid to date are payable to her. As set forth below, claimant is entitled to payment of $3851.94 for reimbursable expenses under both vouchers, in addition to the amounts previously reimbursed by the agency under the second voucher. Reimbursement for First Travel Voucher $1857.50 per diem 48.00 cab fare 160.00 telephone calls - personal 24.66 telephone calls - business 20.00 traveler s check fees 20.19 vehicle supplies $2130.35 total reimbursement for first travel voucher Reimbursement for Second Travel Voucher $3231.00 per diem 27.00 cab fare 6.75 parking, tolls 160.00 telephone calls - personal 1.94 telephone calls - business 20.00 traveler s check fees $ 3446.69 total reimbursement for second travel voucher Total Reimbursement Due Claimant $2130.35 reimbursement for first travel voucher 3446.69 reimbursement for second travel voucher (1725.10) previously reimbursed $3851.94 total reimbursement due claimant Claimant has requested interest on the amount due, TSP deposits to her account with lost interest to those deposits, and her expenses in pursuing her claim. We do not have authority to grant this relief. _______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge